NationStates Jolt Archive

Firstly I have already said that I wish to form some sort of democratic communism so that the 'will of the people' is properly represented so no dictatorship.

I apologise for my assumption of your society I am obviously wrong on this point.

When I say that if greed was removed from human nature that communism would work I am only trying to identify where it is that communism fails this may not be the only thing that needs to be removed from society.

If as you say greed has been put in humanity through evolution it is now no longer necessary to such an extent and there for should be lessened as if everyone gets what they need then no one needs more. But before you say I do not know yet how to get a communism where everyone gets what they need without oppressing people. So it is the methods that I would like help with and would welcome any sensible suggestions.

The true and pure communism doesn't work, true. Soviet Union was not a 'real' communistic country.

arn't you talking 'bout marxism? Communism is what the Soviets made of it. I do agree with a democratic communism or an aristocraty of talent, both have there own advantages. The Soviets didn't make much of either.

'Communisum' has been a princiable since the 1600's Marx was just the first one to write it down and give pollitical power. The french revalution could be sean as an early atempt at communisum but as with most attempts since its creation a middle class rose from it. but please no-one use what I have just said to prove the failings of communisum all this proves is the failure of hummans. (In my opinion of course)

It is an impossible government because of the human greed and should there be no greed the whole world would be a governmentless, happy, boring place probably. So that type of government is a utopia, a place that doesn't and won't ever exist.

Shorly happy is better than boreing.

Saying that communisum is a utopian goverment system is not very constructive to the argument unless you back it up witn reasons.
why doesnt it work?

Communisum as it stands in my opinion will not work which is why Ibelive it should be revised.

My mistake, I admit I was being a bit hasty.
True 100% communism(marxism) is a utopia because either the born greed of human will ruin the ideas and make it a corrupt, friendspolitical state - which honestly Soviet Russia was often - or if by some mysterious way no one will have greed anymore - which is unlikely - the world will become an anarchy and won't need a government for that'd put some people above the others and would ruin the primary ideal of communism.

BTW: My personal ideology is that of the aristocraty of talent: put the best people in your state to power and put the others depending on their intelligence a budget. This'd make some arrogant and dumb aristocrats that would rule foolishly out of the way and make a strong state with fewer weaknesses. This is the most perfect and just government I can believe to exist.

Saying that communisum is a utopian goverment system is not very constructive to the argument unless you back it up witn reasons.
why doesnt it work?

Words seem to be a waste on you. I have been trying to explain that THIS ENTIRE THREAD. Read over any of my responses and you will see some very clear, stable reasons, WHY IT DOES NOT WORK.

If as you say greed has been put in humanity through evolution it is now no longer necessary to such an extent and there for should be lessened as if everyone gets what they need then no one needs more. But before you say I do not know yet how to get a communism where everyone gets what they need without oppressing people. So it is the methods that I would like help with and would welcome any sensible suggestions.
Defend the part of your argument in bold print, please.

And as to the rest of it: the dictatorships were the closest thing to communism this world can come even close to.

And in your ideal and imaginary world where there is enough food for everybody to have equal share of, it will be just as Azharadon says: Anarchy. Governments are instituted among men to protect them from any threat by other men to their natural rights. If there's enough to go around, there is no longer any reason for any man to threaten another's natural rights. Therefore, if there is enough to go around, then there is no purpose for government.

Bellutan, please reread what you've written before you hit "submit reply" for coherency from now on.

Azharadon: What you described as your ideology is the same as what Plato described as his. It is called an aristocracy, and it is unfortunately also utopian. After all, who is going to decide who is the most talented-skilled-wise? The previous council? Wouldn't they elect their friends? Etc.

Edit: By the way, you ought to read Plato's "The Republic."

I apologise I had forgotten that you had indeed previously mentioned the failurs of communisum it is just anoying when people put communisum is the worst/ communisum is the best without bakeing up their argument.

I was hopeing that someone such as your self who is aposed to the current state of communisum would be able to sergest some inprovements.

Let me just outline communist first, the way it should be rather than the way the Soviets had it. The latter has put some kind of stain on communist theory, as nobody seems to be aware that in arguing against communism, you can't use the example of (later period of) the USSR.

Communism in its truest sense is the communal ownership of all things, hence the name. Therefore, property is theft, private business is wrong, and ownership of land is prevented. With regards to production, communist theory states that it should be in the hands of the workers, therefore making it a co-operative (let's not try to apply this to modern business, I am just outlining the orignal intent). The state would not own business as such - although in practise it would probably take care of things like education, health and whatnot - because Marx outlined true communism to be the decline of the state not its reinforcement. Nobody pretends everybody is equal, because they're not. What communists do feel is that, as human beings, we should not hide behind greed and steal (yes it is stealing - Bill Gates has been made a billionaire by ripping of the consumers for years, Nike's Phil Knight is a billionaire by paying labourers in the developing world next to nothing to make his products as cheaply as possible- often less than $5 for a $150 pair of shoes - is that not stealing?) from those around us. People should get as they need, rather than as they want. So, if your co-operative production firm makes $1m, that million will be shared among everyone who works in the firm, workers and managers alike. So the "fat cats" at the top can't rip off the workers at the bottom.

When analysing whether or not "it works" (which in itself is completely flawed, look at Capitalism - does that "work"? It does for the rich, doesn't for the poor. It does for the top 10% of Americans, but not for the 10 year-old Indonesians who get beaten whilst hand stitching Nike shoes, it does for George Bush but not for the innocent Iraqis who got exploded), you can't look at Russia. Look at Yugoslavia instead, or Leninist Russia. Both of those countries made massive gains in terms of modernisation (in fifty years, the USSR became caught up with America by 150 years and put the first man in space). Yugoslavia in particular, that upheld the co-operative ideal, was superb in terms of making production more efficient, re-distributing wealth etc. It fell apart only because of the massive mixtures of races with the country, the death of Tito, and the worldwide economic situation. Vietnam also made massive progress under the communist regime (hell, it even managed to defeat the most powerful military power in the world), and if you visit Vietnam now especially in the North the people are happy, equal and entirely free from Capitalism, McDonalds and elitism.

If you want to look at Socialism in the current use of the word (ie not the Marxist use), then all the Scandinavian countries, with far higher standards of living that the US, cleaner environments, less gap between rich and poor, higher hourly wages and smaller working years, have all succeeded entirely. That is why it continues to be socialist.

I suppose it's difficult for those that have been brought up in America, been subjected to right-wing propaganda from day one, to actually put forward a pursuasive argument against communism other than "it doesn't work - look at Russia".

The problem with what you say about Vietnam and lenninist Russia i dont think is actualy correct. Take Vietnam for example private buisnesses are gaining a grip on their socioty again and in lenninist Russia lennen thought the only way to mend his brocken acconomy after Russias involvement in the first world war was to reintrioduce private bussiness.

As yet as far as I am awere communisum has never actualy been succesfull this is because it fails to take into account the very people that it was made to make equil and that is humans and their nature.

It may sound like I am an oponent of communisum but I am only an openent of communium in its current form.

I was also wondering if anybody had any ideas about how to make communium feaseable in our current political and economic enviroment.

Bellutan: in that case, you are the same deal as Orwell.

If communism were capable of working as Marx would have had it, I would have been a big supporter. But my argument here is that it is simply not possible. Human nature is written in stone, and if you take away our greed, we will be human no longer. If you provide equal amounts of everything to everyone, you will run out of it--and if not, then there's obviously enough for us all, and therefore no reason to establish governments in the first place.

Communism as it is is nowhere near the communist dream, but the latter is impossible to attain. We must always establish governments that are possible; if we do not, what we will get will be a series of miserable failures at government.

This is why "Life sucks." It just does. There's no perfect system, no secret recipie, no Jesus, no Messiah, that will fix the intense suckage that is life. What we need to do is get over impossibilities and focus on what we have to work with--and as we do so, we will notice that the quality of our lives is increasing in spite of the absence of our wild former fantasies.

What communists do feel is that, as human beings, we should not hide behind greed and steal (yes it is stealing - Bill Gates has been made a billionaire by ripping of the consumers for years, Nike's Phil Knight is a billionaire by paying labourers in the developing world next to nothing to make his products as cheaply as possible- often less than $5 for a $150 pair of shoes - is that not stealing?)

No, actually none of that is stealing, unless you already [re]define theft to mean, say, "business" or "property." Stealing involves an actor and a nonconsentual victim (the thief and the target). No one was "robbed." No consumer was forced to buy Microsoft products. Everyone knew the price beforehand and agreed to pay that amount of money. Those labourers agree to work for those wages and continue to do so every day.

When analysing whether or not "it works" (which in itself is completely flawed, look at Capitalism - does that "work"? It does for the rich, doesn't for the poor. It does for the top 10% of Americans, but not for the 10 year-old Indonesians who get beaten whilst hand stitching Nike shoes, it does for George Bush but not for the innocent Iraqis who got exploded),

Capitalism DOES work. Whether a system "works" is not defined as "creates utopian happiness for everyone in the world." It is not defined as "eliminates warfare everywhere." It is not defined as "everyone has the same amount of wealth and resources." If it was, then you're right and NO system works. But it's not.

Work is about functionality and survivability. Capitalism functions as a system, and it survives.

Vietnam also made massive progress under the communist regime (hell, it even managed to defeat the most powerful military power in the world),

Not really, the political and social situation of the most powerful military power in the world became such that it removed the military from the war. On a military and economic level they won no war, and instead only capitalized on the increasing waves of pacifist sentiments and political mismanagement.


I suppose it's difficult for those that have been brought up in America, been subjected to right-wing propaganda from day one, to actually put forward a pursuasive argument against communism other than "it doesn't work - look at Russia".

Yeah, because we aren't also subjected to left-wing propaganda? We can't help but be right-wingers. That's why there's only right-wingers in the US.

Functionality - survival - of an economic system is KEY. That is why you added the part about how Communist Vietnam defeated Capitalist America, because you already agree. And as you've also said, the US is the supreme military power in the world. So what are the powerful communist nations doing - biding their time, waiting before they put the final nail in the capitalist west?

No. They are struggling, and their economies are as dependent on those of capitalist nations as - well, as your communist utopians are as dependent on the welfare state.

It's not "look at Russia," either. It's look at the entire USSR, which was the only counterpoint to the US superpower. Russia was only the first step, combined with the rest of the Union it was the first steps of Communism. And as you said they caught up technologically, very rapidly. Shouldn't they have dominated, then? How is it in a one-on-one global contest for economic and military power, your communist superpower lost to the capitalist one? Buried in the simple fact that it couldn't produce as much wealth, couldn't utilize it's resources effectively, and was outspent by a government with much lower tax rates.

There is no reason to think this is wasn't as close to a global-scale experiemnt of the strengths of communism versus those of capitalism. It concluded with the latter proving more survivable.

My mistake, I admit I was being a bit hasty.
True 100% communism(marxism) is a utopia because either the born greed of human will ruin the ideas and make it a corrupt, friendspolitical state - which honestly Soviet Russia was often - or if by some mysterious way no one will have greed anymore - which is unlikely - the world will become an anarchy and won't need a government for that'd put some people above the others and would ruin the primary ideal of communism.

'Sup Meritocratic buddy? At any rate, Commies believe that greed isn't an inherent human trait, but is instilled upon people by society. In the stages before true Communism, the government removes that.

Yeah, because we aren't also subjected to left-wing propaganda? We can't help but be right-wingers. That's why there's only right-wingers in the US.

Hi. I live in Southern Maryland, USA. I'm a Democratic Socialist.

Also, please refrain from refering to the USSR as a Communist state. They were dirty totalitarian dictatorship state capitalist bastards.

Capitalism DOES work. Whether a system "works" is not defined as "creates utopian happiness for everyone in the world." It is not defined as "eliminates warfare everywhere." It is not defined as "everyone has the same amount of wealth and resources." If it was, then you're right and NO system works. But it's not.

What are you talking about? Warfare, and breeding warfare, is the most capitalistic thing you can do. In fact, capitalism is built on warfare. Not necessarily the international one, but the domestic one at least. The idea that you must "fight" to get ahead and the world is compeltely pitted again solely you. You need to ravage other people to get to the top, care nothing about those you step on, and always look out for yourself.

Take, for example, two people at work. Both work well, and both are up for a promotion, but only one will get it. Now, both these people could work harder to get the promotion, but the most likely course the one that will win it will take is not the honorable one, but the capitalistic one. Taking pictures of the other lazzing about for a minutes, spreading rumors of wrongdoings about his counter part, maybe writting a forged letter or two to the bosses' wife. . . Who do you think will get the promotion in the end.

I'm pretty tired, so I'll just give you a little scene before I leave.
Picture a tree climbing contest, to see who can reach the top of the tree.
On one side is a capitalistic tree climbing team, and on the other a communistic one. The capitalistic team comes in with ladders, and all are quickly trying to make their way to the top, but none want to be left back. In the process of this want, everyone brings a little something with them. A few bring pistols, others bring uzies, one brings a rocket launcher and another decided to take a flamethrow with him (just for variety). Now, in the process of climbing, nearly everyone is struct by another person and falls, but in the process the tree is also destroyed. On the other side, well, guess how the communistic tree climbing contest happened.

Well maybe Unnilania your write I am just a dreamer.

I belive that greed is a human trate developed over the mellenia as a servivel techenech and to early man it served a good perpose but now I do not belive that it is nessersery.
So accepting that it is an evoltionary trate then shorly if it is (as I say it is) now useless then shorly it will be naturaly be evloved out.

If greed is (as has been segested hear) sosiological then if the sosioty changes serficiantly then greed will follow suite.

So if as I am now begining to fear communisum as we now it will not work and I am still adement that the sytem we have has got to go can anyone sergest any amendments that need to be made to the current state of communist policy?
Especialy with regards to the so cal;led 'system of things' that is to come before true communisum.

Guess I might as well unveil my weird economic hopes. I think of myself as a technosocialist. I'd like to see most of the production jobs replaced by machines. They would be more efficient, which would mean an increased supply of just about everything. With that much stuff, everyone could live in relative luxury and they'd be free to follow whatever life they want. One of the arguments against communism is that people are motivated by greed. I disagree; everyone has things they love doing. I personally enjoy programming. When people have meaningful jobs, they're happier. In my utopia, people could pursue their passions without ever having to worry about basic needs or even most wants, and they'd be benefitting society. Culture would flourish as people didn't have to waste valuable time earning wages. Vote for me i...errr...nevermind.

Hi. I live in Southern Maryland, USA. I'm a Democratic Socialist.


Hi. My comment was rhetorically sarcastic (or sarcastically rhetorical). It was meant to show a faulty line of reasoning, since the US is NOT right-wing entirely.


Also, please refrain from refering to the USSR as a Communist state.

Because why? They hadn't reached the true goals of Communism? We have to call them something, and I generally like using what they called themselves. Makes things simpler not to have to re-name everything. Otherwise we wouldn't call Nazis Nazis, because they weren't ideal "national socialists." (Actually, one could argue that nazism is the end result of socialist policies mixed with human nature...)


What are you talking about? Warfare, and breeding warfare, is the most capitalistic thing you can do. In fact, capitalism is built on warfare. Not necessarily the international one, but the domestic one at least.

Domestic warfare? Capitalism? Are you sure you know what you're saying, because it sounds as if you're really reaching and hoping I'll agree with what is at best a far-fetched correlation. One might as well say communism is built on warfare.



The idea that you must "fight" to get ahead and the world is compeltely pitted again solely you.

That's not what capitalism is. There is both competition and cooperation in capitalism (as in life in general). That's why there are corporations, that's why deals are agreed upon by both parties (which is hardly the case if your "pitted against the world," i.e directly competing and never cooperating.)


You need to ravage other people to get to the top, care nothing about those you step on, and always look out for yourself.


A misconception. Try getting a promotion by "ravaging other people." Unfortunately it doesn't work.


Take, for example, two people at work. Both work well, and both are up for a promotion, but only one will get it. Now, both these people could work harder to get the promotion, but the most likely course the one that will win it will take is not the honorable one, but the capitalistic one.

Do you think we should base an economic system on who is the most "honorable?" Like say the feudal system? That was real swell.

Do you also think every company only offers promotion in that exact manner, offering it to only 2 candidates, and basing it on how "capitalistic" each one is? That's an absurdly naive view, and it insults anyone who happens to have ever gotten a promotion.

Taking pictures of the other lazzing about for a minutes, spreading rumors of wrongdoings about his counter part, maybe writting a forged letter or two to the bosses' wife. . . Who do you think will get the promotion in the end.

What you are describing is the result of favoritism and maliciousness. You think a capitalist society has a monopoly on favoritism or maliciousness? Or that communist policies eliminate the human tendency to play favorites, to play dirty tricks? Go to any schoolyard or daycare... you'll see it happens even amongst children who have no economic system or idealogy. Human nature, not the product of capitalism.

Actually, the favoritism is far more likely in communism. Sleep with the arbiter of who gets what. If you can't sleep with them, kill whoever else is going to get something. Since resources are limited, competition remains..and without capital to compete with, all you are left with is bullets.

Your idea sounds good Poptartrea but maybe a little utopian, it would need a very stable ecconomy to be bassed on in the first place, and the mashines would need to be maintained who would do that?

I dont see how favoritism is any more likly in communisum than in capitalisum and why are the ressorses are any more limmited than in a communisum? If we take the best case senario everyone has what they need and in the wordt everyone starves this is the same in both systems.

to Santa Babara you said:

'Go to any schoolyard or daycare... you'll see it happens even amongst children who have no economic system or idealogy. Human nature, not the product of capitalism.'

Could this not be because they have been braught up in a capitalist sosioty and there for have learnt capitalist ideals?

Your idea sounds good Poptartrea but maybe a little utopian, it would need a very stable ecconomy to be bassed on in the first place, and the mashines would need to be maintained who would do that?
I'm going to laugh over the irony of that, coming from you, for a moment.
.
.
.
Ok I'm done.


I dont see how favoritism is any more likly in communisum than in capitalisum and why are the ressorses are any more limmited than in a communisum? If we take the best case senario everyone has what they need and in the wordt everyone starves this is the same in both systems.
Sorry, but not to branch off: you complain endlessly that everyone in the world is apparently starving. I had not noticed that. Perhaps you should go feed these poor starving people? Ok have fun with that.



to Santa Babara you said:

'Go to any schoolyard or daycare... you'll see it happens even amongst children who have no economic system or idealogy. Human nature, not the product of capitalism.'

Could this not be because they have been braught up in a capitalist sosioty and there for have learnt capitalist ideals?
I fail to see your connection.

Your idea sounds good Poptartrea but maybe a little utopian, it would need a very stable ecconomy to be bassed on in the first place, and the mashines would need to be maintained who would do that?

People who enjoy tinkering. I went through a machination phase for about a year where I took anything and everything apart. I'm sure there are people who have it as a lifetime hobby. And yes, there would have to be major infrastructure already in place, and then there's the question of how one would assemble all the machines. I guess it probably is a pipe dream. Oh well, I'll keep trying to think of realistic goals, then once I come up with an implementable goal I'll try my hardest to work for it.

to Santa Babara you said:

'Go to any schoolyard or daycare... you'll see it happens even amongst children who have no economic system or idealogy. Human nature, not the product of capitalism.'

Could this not be because they have been braught up in a capitalist sosioty and there for have learnt capitalist ideals?

Are you saying before capitalism, or in non capitalist societies, there are no bullies among children?

Hell you can see it in daycare centers. At 3, or 4 years old are you really suggesting they have "learned capitalist ideals" when one kid takes something from another for his own benefit?

Not to mention, that is NOT what capitalist idealism is about anyway - it's about a mutually beneficial, mutually consentual contract.

Capitalism simply follows human nature. To think people could live happily under Socialism for an extended period of time is absurd.

I didnt mean by learnt that there was any concious choice in the learning more that if you are brought up in a sosioty then you are bound to find your self with trates of that sosioty the same way that how your perents brought you up will change the way you think about things. belive that in this case this 'human nature' as you call it is changed by the sosioty that we live in.

Capitalisum may follow human nature but that does not meen it is the best human nature can change. If it is sosiologicall then it will change with the sosiol revolution if it is evelutionery it will change as the human race evolves.

Can I go out on a limb and say social democracy? Technically communist when it comes to social reform, healthg care coverage, etc. (you know, like Britain or Canada) but a capitalist financial system, because I dislike the fact that in communism one man gets to choose how much money you get. Too much power in the hands of one man to be effective, hence the fall of communism in reality.

I didnt mean by learnt that there was any concious choice in the learning more that if you are brought up in a sosioty then you are bound to find your self with trates of that sosioty the same way that how your perents brought you up will change the way you think about things. belive that in this case this 'human nature' as you call it is changed by the sosioty that we live in.

Capitalisum may follow human nature but that does not meen it is the best human nature can change. If it is sosiologicall then it will change with the sosiol revolution if it is evelutionery it will change as the human race evolves.

It is ignorant bullshit to say that our upbringing affects our human nature.

Stupidity must be as blissful as ignorance.

It is ignorant bullshit to say that our upbringing affects our human nature.

Stupidity must be as blissful as ignorance.


Perhaps you would like to back that up as you have left that statement with absolutely no proof. Calling other people names does not constitute an argument.

Perhaps you would like to back that up as you have left that statement with absolutely no proof. Calling other people names does not constitute an argument.

Ever stop and help get a guy out of a ditch?

Ever give someone the time, or directions?

Ever game someone poor a penny?

Ever helped someone who's dropped something?

Ever been nice to your go coworker when they were overworked?

What was YOUR benefit.

Besides, basing the entire moral values of capitalism on a three year old is kind of. . . Uhh. . .

Why is communism so great. If i get just as much sitting on my ass as I do working, what's my motivation to try?

Why is communism so great. If i get just as much sitting on my ass as I do working, what's my motivation to try?


Because you're forced?

As far as I know, if you don't contribute to society in some form, you don't get anything in return.

Because you're forced?

As far as I know, if you don't contribute to society in some form, you don't get anything in return.
but then cant the person in the commie country just not really try and get a job at like a movie store? then they get free movies and the same pay as someone who worked their ass off.. theres no real motivation to try unless you are forced.

Communism and socialism work, but not without democracy. In the words on V.I. Lenin, "Democracy is indispensable to socialism."

The primary reason that Americans are anti-communist is our history of excessive freedoms and anti-communal lifestyle. In the closer-knit nations of Europe, socialism has worked wonders and dramatically improved the quality of life.

Stupidity must be as blissful as ignorance.

I dont think insulting me will help your case and you still havent jusified your comments.

Yes i agree with you East Sibir I proposed deomcratic communisum on this topic a wile back this makes shore that the will of the people is always upheld. There for makeing shopre that communisum like befor wont turn to dictatorship.

Communism is the best!!!

Through Days dark and stormy where Great Lenin Lead us
Our Eyes saw the Bright Sun of Freedom above
and Stalin our Leader with Faith in the People,
Inspired us to Build up the Land that we Love.

Now, and forever!!! :cool:

Im Lassiez Faire Capitalist, and proud!

:gundge:

Yes lennin had the write idea but do you not think that stallin was a little despotic.
I myself belived that lennin was good and stallin was a tirant. He did after all cause the starvation of 30,000,000 of his own people so that he could buy tractors.

Don't you mean Capitialism or Socialism!
Get it RIGHT! Capitalism and Socialism are Economic Structures
Democracy, Republic, and Communism are Government Structures.
This is my view
Capitalism-Corrupt, Mainly because rich people, media, and trade companies run the government through economy
Socialism-No one starves, everyone has a house, Government rules the Economy. Only problem is speech is owned by the government.

Capitalist, of course.

In Communism all countries have ceased to exist, because there is no need for a state.

Don't you mean Capitialism or Socialism!
Get it RIGHT! Capitalism and Socialism are Economic Structures
Democracy, Republic, and Communism are Government Structures.
This is my view
Capitalism-Corrupt, Mainly because rich people, media, and trade companies run the government through economy
Socialism-No one starves, everyone has a house, Government rules the Economy. Only problem is speech is owned by the government.

I's sorry to correct you here because i actually agree with much of what you have said. However, Capitalism, Socialism and Communism are all economic structures. Socialism is the abolishion of private property, from each according to his ability and all that. Communism is the deterioration of the state and the deterioration of individual want surpassing individual need - no need for a government because things are all voluntarily shared. It's not really an opinion. Democracy is a system of administrating government (it can, and should be applied to Socialism), and a Republic is a state without a monarchy.

In reply to an earler thread by Santa Barbara - Capitalism doesn't work. You say that it doesn't as far as creating a utopia for everyone, wealth being distributed, elimination of welfare...what is your definition of whether something works? Whether you personally benefit from it? Come off it - you list the things that SHOULD decide whether a system works or not, and then say that Capitalism does none of them. You have just proved my point. A very odd reply.

And regarding the "theft" or not theft, if somebody were to begin a scam, as is regularly done, where they convince a person that investing their money will get them a greater return, and then take that person's money with their consent. Suppose then that they keep that money because they say that although the investment was a viable gamble, it didn't pay off. Following, let's say that they just took the money and ran with it. A perhaps more ignorant person may well fall for said scam (as they do all over the world over and over again) and not think that it is anything other than a failed business opertunity. Is that theft? The scammers took money that was given to them under a false pretense. In other words, they lied. Like when Nike lie about their products making you run faster, or saying that their trainers are worth $150 when it cost them $5 to make. It is identical. I'm sorry, but your clear cut opinion is utterly flawed.

And as you said they caught up technologically, very rapidly. Shouldn't they have dominated, then? How is it in a one-on-one global contest for economic and military power, your communist superpower lost to the capitalist one? Buried in the simple fact that it couldn't produce as much wealth, couldn't utilize it's resources effectively, and was outspent by a government with much lower tax rates.

I am no Russian communist. I did NOT say they caught up rapidly. I said they made massive technological advances, they never caught up and I doubt they will for a long time. But the reason that they lessened the gap is because of the regime, you cannot deny that. Fool - it is not a one on one competition. Do you have any idea how international trade and economics work? You cannot isolate two countries and watch their progress as a specific battle. Perhaps if they start from the same place, they have the same population, they have the same weather conditions, they have the same government system (I could go on forever). Russia took a stand in limiting trade with the Capitalist west. This puts them at an immediate disadvantage. They also had 85% of the population as peasants. Ie, people with pitchforks farming their own bit of land. There was no General Motors. And how exactly do you "produce wealth"?? Either you maintain circulation of the same money within a country, or you use trade to boost it. Russia did not choose to do the latter as a part of its principles. What Lenin aimed to do was re-distribute wealth throughout Russia, which they did. "Utilise resources"???? Oh dear. Do you have any idea how many "resources" Russia actually had? More than 75% of its land was ENTIRELY unusable because of the terrible conditions...what a great comparison to the temperate US.

Before you make comments try to research them a little.

Capitalism simply follows human nature. To think people could live happily under Socialism for an extended period of time is absurd.

Erm, Sweden, Iceland, Denmark, Norway (the list goes on) have been managing it brilliantly for years. They have a higher standard of life than Americans, a higher average IQ, get paid more, have more time off, are healthier, are cleaner.......

In reply to an earler thread by Santa Barbara - Capitalism doesn't work. You say that it doesn't as far as creating a utopia for everyone, wealth being distributed, elimination of welfare...what is your definition of whether something works?

Garsh, I dunno! If an economic system can't provide a utopia for everyone and distribute all wealth equally and eliminate welfare, it MUST SUCK. Therefore, ALL ECONOMIC SYSTEMS SUCK.


Whether you personally benefit from it? Come off it - you list the things that SHOULD decide whether a system works or not, and then say that Capitalism does none of them. You have just proved my point. A very odd reply.

I proved your point? Only because the things I listed - equal distribution of wealth - "should" decide whether a system works IN YOUR OPINION. I have proved no point of yours... and neither have you.

And regarding the "theft" or not theft, if somebody were to begin a scam, as is regularly done, where they convince a person that investing their money will get them a greater return, and then take that person's money with their consent. Suppose then that they keep that money because they say that although the investment was a viable gamble, it didn't pay off. Following, let's say that they just took the money and ran with it. A perhaps more ignorant person may well fall for said scam (as they do all over the world over and over again) and not think that it is anything other than a failed business opertunity. Is that theft?

Technically, it depends on what local law is. In my opinion, no. You fall for a scam, you're scammed, not robbed.

The scammers took money that was given to them under a false pretense. In other words, they lied. Like when Nike lie about their products making you run faster, or saying that their trainers are worth $150 when it cost them $5 to make. It is identical. I'm sorry, but your clear cut opinion is utterly flawed.

Wait how does the fact that people lie make my opinion flawed? WHICH opinion, by the way? Be more specific when you're ranting about how evil corporations are and how wrong that makes me, please.


I am no Russian communist. I did NOT say they caught up rapidly.

Actually, you did:

Both of those countries made massive gains in terms of modernisation (in fifty years, the USSR became caught up with America by 150 years and put the first man in space).


But the reason that they lessened the gap is because of the regime, you cannot deny that. Fool - it is not a one on one competition. Do you have any idea how international trade and economics work? You cannot isolate two countries and watch their progress as a specific battle.

Why not? It's a rough measure anyway, I never said it was a scientifically accurate laboratory test.


Russia took a stand in limiting trade with the Capitalist west. This puts them at an immediate disadvantage.

I agree.

And how exactly do you "produce wealth"?? Either you maintain circulation of the same money within a country, or you use trade to boost it.

Wealth is more than money. As for how to produce wealth, well that's a longer subject than I care to get into...

"Utilise resources"???? Oh dear. Do you have any idea how many "resources" Russia actually had? More than 75% of its land was ENTIRELY unusable because of the terrible conditions...what a great comparison to the temperate US.

Oh, so Russia is located more northerly so we can't compare it - its not fair? Please. Russia had and has plenty of resources. And where did you get that 75% of the land is complete waste number? I'm suspecting you just made it up.

Not to mention, that hardly matters, as nations with small amounts of land can still be wealthy. Unless of course they're run by totalitarian communists.


Before you make comments try to research them a little.

Likewise.

=( half my country's capitalist, the other half r commies....

What am I then???

Depends on your political ideas what would you prefera?

Dear Santa Barabara,

No, 75% is an actual figure as per my text books (unless they are lying of course). Do you have any idea how cold it is in Russia for most of the year? Land freezes over entirely rendering it entirely unsuitable for farming. America has vast expanses of superb land, as well as starting from an entirely more wealthy position in the economy race of which you speak. America didn't get rich, America began rich. Oh no wait, it didn't because the Indian Americans were there first and they were slaughtered. But speaking in terms of the modern day American, they were all originally immigrants from across Europe etc with the original wealth allowing them to leave for a new country and start a new life. Not something your average peasant could/would do.

And NO I didn't say they caught up, i said they caught up by 150 years. They were 200 years behind leaving them still 50 years short. That's just basic maths really.

Oh, scammers aren't thiefs? So they shouldn't be punished? It has nothing to do with local law, rather individual morals. If somebody takes somebody else's money by lying or cheating, I would call that theft. Don't pretend that if you were scammed you wouldn't stand back and on reflection decide that it was fair that you lost $10,000 because you were too silly to trust them. I know entirely intelligent people that have lost money in similar ways. Corporations have a responsibility to sell their products honestly. Nike do not. All major companies do not because of their basic want to make as much money as possible, and thus cut all the corners possible, and then trying to make us all buy it. If you let them do what they wish look where you end up - Corporate America. Parties run by funding from oil company CEO's, corps dictating government policy, low corporate tax to keep the fatcats happy...

"Not to mention, that hardly matters, as nations with small amounts of land can still be wealthy. Unless of course they're run by totalitarian communists." You don't half speak a load of bollocks. Yes, little countries can be prosperous. But say that they aren't indeed little, and are the largest in the world. Say then that they have a population spread about the 25% of the farmable land. That is not the same as having a country the size of England, say. England can be prosperous because there are the same amount of people per farmable acre, and therefore comparisons between the US and the UK are as good as you get. Russia is entirely different, with people struggling to a) afford land and b) farm it, you get less output. This is fact. Some places are simply better than other for farming, and some places just happen to have massive gold reserves (America), oil (the Middle-East), coal (Britain) etc. If you're not so fortunate, the only way to get some is trade. Then we go back to the difficulties of Lenin trading with the west.

Don't even try and argue that had George W. Bush been President of Russia in the early 20th century that he would have been able to make it prosperous and wealthy. The fact was everybody was poorer in 1917 at the time of the revolution than in America at the same time, and so the aim of the USSR was to stop people starving by wealth redistribution. Not to have some pathetic competition with the US about who has the biggest economy.

You say Russia had plenty of resources...list a few and then compare that to what the US could get its hands on.

Oh, and remember, as Soviet Russia began to stabalise, the US had the Wall Street Crash of 1929 entirely destroying their economy and putting millions and millions out of work and living in home made slums. That never happened in Russia. That's what right-wing politics leads to, as is evidenced now: boom and bust market fluctuation. Does it bother you that Swedes earn more than you and work less and yet still have the highest standard of living and highest taxes in the world?

I like to call it Ingsoc.

No, 75% is an actual figure as per my text books (unless they are lying of course). Do you have any idea how cold it is in Russia for most of the year?

Yep. But as I said, non-farmable does not mean "totally economically unproductive," as you seem to be implying.

speaking in terms of the modern day American, they were all originally immigrants from across Europe etc with the original wealth allowing them to leave for a new country and start a new life. Not something your average peasant could/would do.

Modern day Americans were all originally immigrants? I don't remember being one. Maybe you mean my ancestors.

Because they had enough money to immigrate you think they (and the country) was rich? How many people immigrate every year who don't have a single bit more wealth than your average peasant? Lots.

And NO I didn't say they caught up, i said they caught up by 150 years. They were 200 years behind leaving them still 50 years short. That's just basic maths really.

So what, they caught up most of the way, all of the way it doesn't matter.

My point was a government that can do that should be able to succeed. Why didn't it?

Oh, scammers aren't thiefs?

A semantic irrelevance.

So they shouldn't be punished?

Did I say that? Clearly, punishment is often applied to other crimes than theft.

Don't pretend that if you were scammed you wouldn't stand back and on reflection decide that it was fair that you lost $10,000 because you were too silly to trust them.

That it was "fair?" No. Life isn't fair. But that I was silly? Yes indeed.

Corporations have a responsibility to sell their products honestly. Nike do not.

Because there's lying in advertising?

All major companies do not because of their basic want to make as much money as possible, and thus cut all the corners possible, and then trying to make us all buy it.

If that's all so wrong, you should convince people not to join major companies or buy products, instead of ranting angrily about capitalism like every other communist.

If you let them do what they wish look where you end up - Corporate America. Parties run by funding from oil company CEO's,

That's different from parties run by funding from government-seized oil companies... how? The decrease in freedom?

corps dictating government policy,

Yeah let's just prevent people from forming corporations AND people from participating in democratic government. Would you prefer that?


low corporate tax to keep the fatcats happy...

Low taxes keep all taxed happy. What's your brilliant socialist solution again, tax everyone as much as possible?

"Not to mention, that hardly matters, as nations with small amounts of land can still be wealthy. Unless of course they're run by totalitarian communists." You don't half speak a load of bollocks. Yes, little countries can be prosperous. But say that they aren't indeed little, and are the largest in the world. Say then that they have a population spread about the 25% of the farmable land.

That's why Comrade Stalin's multi-million people purges and 5-year plans worked so well to change things for the better!

Russia is entirely different, with people struggling to a) afford land and b) farm it, you get less output.

Hmm and why were they struggling to afford land? Especially once communism made everyone equally wealthy!

This is fact. Some places are simply better than other for farming, and some places just happen to have massive gold reserves (America), oil (the Middle-East), coal (Britain) etc. If you're not so fortunate, the only way to get some is trade. Then we go back to the difficulties of Lenin trading with the west.

Or the difficulties in fostering entrepeneurship in anti-capitalist, anti-ownership, anti-trade societies, eh? As you have pointed out trade is essential for a nation (any one). That goes for the small scale, too, something you and other statists seem to miss out on when you advocate the nation become one giant corporation.

Don't even try and argue that had George W. Bush been President of Russia in the early 20th century that he would have been able to make it prosperous and wealthy.

Okay, I won't. (Straw man anyway.)

The fact was everybody was poorer in 1917 at the time of the revolution than in America at the same time, and so the aim of the USSR was to stop people starving by wealth redistribution. Not to have some pathetic competition with the US about who has the biggest economy.

So? The aim of the USA in 1776 was not to become the world superpower and defeat communism either. It just worked out that way...

You say Russia had plenty of resources...list a few and then compare that to what the US could get its hands on.

Aw, too much land, not enough land, not enough resources. I guess Russia is doomed? Is that what you're saying - it's not fair because Russia is so god-awful it can't be economically productive? Bullshit.

My point was not about who had the MOST resources but who could also utilize and manage those resources most effectively. You seemed to have forgotten the management part. Why was the USSR not a good manager of resources, hmm?

Oh, and remember, as Soviet Russia began to stabalise, the US had the Wall Street Crash of 1929 entirely destroying their economy and putting millions and millions out of work and living in home made slums.

For a few years. We got over it.

That never happened in Russia.

Yeah you just had a broad, longtime bust, poverty and government oppression.

That's what right-wing politics leads to, as is evidenced now: boom and bust market fluctuation.

Actually, MARKETS lead to boom and bust market fluctuation. The fact that in Russia some people had convinced themselves there was no market does not mean there wasn't one.

Does it bother you that Swedes earn more than you and work less and yet still have the highest standard of living and highest taxes in the world?

Not really. Should it? I am well aware that by simply forking over most of my wealth and freedom, a government will be happy to take care of me. Just as I am aware that by giving the mafia a slice out of my pie they will be happy to put an arm around me.

You say they work less. Good! Good for them. My personal philosophy gives "work" more importance and places "being a government ward" at a very low priority. So no, it doesn't bother me.

Does it bother you that your beloved communist USSR lost?

Capitalist. Though a funky kind.